Yellow Box for Windows Still Exists?

[rayz]

It's a possibility, but not a probability.

The big picture is that historically Mac OS has been "the choice" while Windows has been the defacto standard that everyone has been buying (because "everything" has been developed for Windows and fewer software titles for Mac). Now what Steve Jobs is trying to do is reverse the situation: Imagine Mac OSX being "the platform" where you can run and compile for "everything". That makes using Windows a choice of not having all options open! That makes more (technology conscious) people switch to OSX — and more importantly; that makes more developers switch to OSX and/or XCode.

I think the first chap had it right. Being able to 'compile for everything' is not something that interests 96% of Apple's consumer base.
A future 'OSX' based on Windows would be able to run Windows applications and games at native speed. There would be no need to try and get games developers to write for the Mac, because they wouldn't have to. The likes of Adobe and Microsoft certainly won't be porting their code to 64-bit Cocoa because it wouldn't be worth the effort; what if they already know that they won't have to port anything?

It could be that this move is part of a transition; to make sure that the Cocoa developers are not abandoned if/when Apple decides to run their environment on top of Windows.

You can already see signs of this happening as game houses are coming back to Mac. Once these compile-for-all-platforms development tools are ready and games are developed with XCode (which is likely to happen, because if something is easier for a company like in developing software once instead of twice, that will happen), it makes Windows a 2nd grade platform. But there's no chance for it unless XCode can also compile for Windows. Until that happens, Mac games will always be ported.

Or to look at it realistically; these companies could still not be convinced to port to a Mac, so they are going to use an emulation layer, the performance of which (especially on the sub-par graphics of Apple's consumer machines) is already in question. It doesn't make Windows a 2nd grade platform, it makes the Win32 API the standard for everyone. Not the result many would like to see.

 

[rayz]

Combined with Jobs' statements that MS won the desktop war and that if he were in charge of Apple he would milk the Mac for all its got and move on to the next big thing, I think he's doing just that.

We are incrementally being moved to Windows.

Quicktime, iTunes, and now Safari on Windows are not there to bring Windows users to the Mac; they are there to bring Mac users to Windows, ultimately.

We will have NeXT - er, Mac OS X - on Windows.

That's OK - Macs are great today, and the incremental movement will be painless. In the end, we'll have a Mac-like experience on top of Windows, running on Apple hardware. The Apple GUI on Windows will only work on Apple hardware. This relieves Apple of all the development costs and problems with developing the underlying OS. They can focus on the innovative hardware (little things like bluetooth, motion sensors, magsafe, etc.) working in harmony via the Mac GUI on a Windows core (kernel).

Edit: I should add that this is just my opinion, and I could be completely wrong.

This is exactly what I've been saying for years (including the bit about possibly being wrong).

It gives them a cash cow in PCs that they don't have to spend any money on, which means they're free to focus on the next big thing you mentioned.

Might explain why Apple has never bothered to make iTunes and Safari resemble a Windows app.

On the other hand it could be a move to try and convince Windows users to move to a Mac, but it seems like a lot of effort for a handful of marketshare points.

One question. Is that quote genuine?

 

[alandail]

I can't imagine it would be very effective. Asking a Windows developer to start learning Cocoa (which might not be the optimal development environment on Windows) just to make their application cross-platform is a hefty request.

It would only really work for Windows projects just starting off now where cross-platform compatibility is key, and where they don't already have previous cross-platform expertise (for someone like Blizzard it's probably easier/quicker to go with their tried and trusted cross-platform code than try something new).

It's a lot more likely this would appeal to Mac-only developers who want to go cross-platform to Windows.

Don't think there aren't tons of developers who wouldn't love to be able to use Cocoa on windows. There is currently no compelling cross platform solution. They all have serious problems. A really implementation of Cocoa for windows would be by far the best solution. The technology works - or at least worked a decade ago. Before Yellow Box for windows was even a project, before Apple even bought NeXT, there was a NeXTStep runtim, i.e. Cocoa, for Windows.

 

[72930]

Considering NEXTSTEP and NEXTSTEP both ran on Intel

Wow! I knew one did, but both...!

 

[alandail]

This is exactly what I've been saying for years (including the bit about possibly being wrong).

It gives them a cash cow in PCs that they don't have to spend any money on, which means they're free to focus on the next big thing you mentioned.

Might explain why Apple has never bothered to make iTunes and Safari resemble a Windows app.

On the other hand it could be a move to try and convince Windows users to move to a Mac, but it seems like a lot of effort for a handful of marketshare points.

One question. Is that quote genuine?

There are two market shares Apple is going after. One is to help bring more people to the mac. The other is to boost Safari's market share. 1 million downloads in 2 days tells you there is interest in safari on the PC. Can they double or triple Safari's market share? Can they displace firefox as the #2 browser? How many of those people will leave http://www.apple.com/startpage/ as their default home page? Thus see daily Apple's promos for iPhone, Leapard, apple tv, itunes, etc, etc.

Combine the number of people running safari on windows with the number who will be running it on iPhone and Safari's browser market share will soon far surpass what it would be as a mac only browser. And even as a "free" product, it brings back revenue with Google and Yahoo search built in.

 

[whooleytoo]

Don't think there aren't tons of developers who wouldn't love to be able to use Cocoa on windows. There is currently no compelling cross platform solution. They all have serious problems. A really implementation of Cocoa for windows would be by far the best solution. The technology works - or at least worked a decade ago. Before Yellow Box for windows was even a project, before Apple even bought NeXT, there was a NeXTStep runtim, i.e. Cocoa, for Windows.

I'm not sure how many. It might appeal to developers without a significant existing codebase who are starting a new project, but not established developers.

And - knowing the concept has been pulled once already - I'm can't see who would be willing to invest the time and money in their developers learning the framework, if there's the risk Apple could pull the plug once again and all that time and effort was wasted.

 

[QBranch]

Back when who was what?

Back when Apple was NeXT Inc, NeXT sold a product called (something like)

I'm a fan of Doctor Who and all, but what parallel timeline was this? When NeXT was NeXT, Apple was Apple, no?

 

[peharri]

I'm a fan of Doctor Who and all, but what parallel timeline was this? When NeXT was NeXT, Apple was Apple, no?

NeXT bought Apple for minus several zillion dollars a decade or so ago, so Apple today is NeXT back then. It's a kind of joke, I never was much good at those kinds of things.

 

[rayz]

Don't think there aren't tons of developers who wouldn't love to be able to use Cocoa on windows. There is currently no compelling cross platform solution. They all have serious problems. A really implementation of Cocoa for windows would be by far the best solution. The technology works - or at least worked a decade ago. Before Yellow Box for windows was even a project, before Apple even bought NeXT, there was a NeXTStep runtim, i.e. Cocoa, for Windows.

Actually there are quite a few really good cross platform toolkits TrollTech for one. And WxWidgets is another. Java is also ... er ... okay then perhaps not.

But I'm not so sure that this about getting more developers onto the Mac, as opposed to allowing existing Mac developers to move with Apple.

 

[rayz]

There are two market shares Apple is going after. One is to help bring more people to the mac. The other is to boost Safari's market share. 1 million downloads in 2 days tells you there is interest in safari on the PC.

It also tells you how massive the Windows market it is, and I think that is what Jobs is thinking.

Can they double or triple Safari's market share? Can they displace firefox as the #2 browser? How many of those people will leave http://www.apple.com/startpage/ as their default home page? Thus see daily Apple's promos for iPhone, Leapard, apple tv, itunes, etc, etc.

Combine the number of people running safari on windows with the number who will be running it on iPhone and Safari's browser market share will soon far surpass what it would be as a mac only browser. And even as a "free" product, it brings back revenue with Google and Yahoo search built in.

Which kind of proves that Windows is the key. Just as it was for the iPod. Rather than trying to convince a significant number of people to come over to the Mac (which is unlikely to work, since there already more people online with Vista than new Macs), it may be better to bring the Mac platform to them.
What sounds better? Fight for every micro percentage of marketshare?
Or make a move that will give you double figures over night?

 

[shyataroo]

yellow box would save blizzard time and money. Yellow box would enable game devs to port games to a mac faster than ever. hell, such a thing would give no one an excuse NOT to develop for mac (unless they hate mac) it would also take away any advantage windows would have vs the mac

 

[dcr]

Don't think there aren't tons of developers who wouldn't love to be able to use Cocoa on windows.

no serious cross-platform developer would invest their future in a framework provided by one of major platform vendors -- the potential to be yanked around is too great, and you can pretty much guarantee a substandard experience on the "other" platforms. remember MFC for Mac? (Word 6.0)

 

[Rocketman]

Don't think there aren't tons of developers who wouldn't love to be able to use Cocoa on windows. There is currently no compelling cross platform solution. They all have serious problems. A really implementation of Cocoa for windows would be by far the best solution. The technology works - or at least worked a decade ago. Before Yellow Box for windows was even a project, before Apple even bought NeXT, there was a NeXTStep runtim, i.e. Cocoa, for Windows.

If it is so good, why are programmers not bidding up old copies and licenses of that software?

Red Box
Nextstep for NT
etc

Rocketman

 

[alandail]

no serious cross-platform developer would invest their future in a framework provided by one of major platform vendors -- the potential to be yanked around is too great, and you can pretty much guarantee a substandard experience on the "other" platforms. remember MFC for Mac? (Word 6.0)

I am a developer. I have 3 different clients who would jump all over Cocoa for Windows if it were available.

Is Safari a sub-standard Windows app? I don't think so. There is no technical reason Apple couldn't provide a world class cross platform solution. They really are the only company who could There currently is NOTHING that works as well for cross platform as Cocoa would. It's already a proven solution that isn't available for reasons other than how well it would work from a technical standpoint.

I actually developed a full fledged Windows app using Yellow Box for windows before it was pulled. The speed with which it could be developed and the robustness of the final product are unmatched by any cross platform solution to this day. The current (publicly available) cross platform frameworks generally provide sub-standard solution on both platforms. It's currently faster and more effective to develop and refine your UI in Cocoa and then rewrite everything for Windows than it is to use a cross platform solution.

 

[alandail]

If it is so good, why are programmers not bidding up old copies and licenses of that software?

Red Box
Nextstep for NT
etc

Rocketman

There was no Red Box (Windows on Rhapsody). That was never more than a rumor.

NeXTStep for NT is not the current Cocoa and is not available for license. I have discs I could use to develop and run Yellow Box for Windows apps using years old technology that is missing years worth of advancements in the technology (bindings, core data, core graphics, core animation, etc., etc). And what I don't have, and what nobody has, is a license to install Yellow Box runtime onto customers machines.

 

[peharri]

yellow box would save blizzard time and money. Yellow box would enable game devs to port games to a mac faster than ever. hell, such a thing would give no one an excuse NOT to develop for mac (unless they hate mac) it would also take away any advantage windows would have vs the mac

Well, it would if Blizzard wanted to write native Mac apps that also ran on Windows as "well" as iTunes, Quicktime, and Safari do. The chances of that are close to zero as these applications are far from liked (though widely used) amongst Windows users. Additionally, I'm pretty certain I wouldn't want to write a game that's trying to push the CPU in a semi-dynamic language like Objective C. Even Java would, in many ways, be more appropriate.

Blizzard (et al) is better off with the APIs provided by groups like Transgaming and Codeweavers. They can write native Windows games, and easily port them to Mac OS X. The game is therefore optimized for the popular platform, but usable on the less popular platform.

Cross platform APIs are not as great as people think they are. Trolltech has managed something moderately successful with QT, and some well written Java applications almost look native on Mac OS X and almost look native on Windows at the same time. As a rule though, they fail to make much headway because of the difference in philosophies and concepts that make the platforms unique in the first place.

Oh yeah, one more thing (or is that One More Thing... heh)

If you're desperate for a way to develop Cocoa apps on Windows, the NeXT best thing (hoho, I kill myself) is GNUstep. Using an subsystem called Renaissance, you should be able to package applications that run under GNU/Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows. Indeed, GNUstep started out as a way to port a NEXTSTEP app to X11/Unix, and kind of grew from there. But as a concept, it's still as ugly as Java.

 

[alandail]

Well, it would if Blizzard wanted to write native Mac apps that also ran on Windows as "well" as iTunes, Quicktime, and Safari do. The chances of that are close to zero as these applications are far from liked (though widely used) amongst Windows users. Additionally, I'm pretty certain I wouldn't want to write a game that's trying to push the CPU in a semi-dynamic language like Objective C. Even Java would, in many ways, be more appropriate.

Blizzard (et al) is better off with the APIs provided by groups like Transgaming and Codeweavers. They can write native Windows games, and easily port them to Mac OS X. The game is therefore optimized for the popular platform, but usable on the less popular platform.

Cross platform APIs are not as great as people think they are. Trolltech has managed something moderately successful with QT, and some well written Java applications almost look native on Mac OS X and almost look native on Windows at the same time. As a rule though, they fail to make much headway because of the difference in philosophies and concepts that make the platforms unique in the first place.

Oh yeah, one more thing (or is that One More Thing... heh)

If you're desperate for a way to develop Cocoa apps on Windows, the NeXT best thing (hoho, I kill myself) is GNUstep. Using an subsystem called Renaissance, you should be able to package applications that run under GNU/Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows. Indeed, GNUstep started out as a way to port a NEXTSTEP app to X11/Unix, and kind of grew from there. But as a concept, it's still as ugly as Java.

Yellow Box apps under Windows looked 100% native. There is no reason for developing something as simple as a cross platform dialog to be so difficult compared to how trivially easy it was to do with yellow box.

Again, a nearly a decade old API on one platform is not the same thing as having today's Cocoa available for windows development. Yellow Box for windows was a single set of source code and a single set of NIB files where you basically just checked a check box to get a windows build of your app. The windows build used native windows windows, controls, and fonts.

It was not some Java style cross platform attempt that uses no native controls on any OS. And you really don't know what you are talking about if you think interpreted Java would be a better solution than dynamically dispatched Objective-C/Cocoa for performance critical apps. The app I developed with yellow box was 100x faster than it's C++ predecessor primarily because of the rich set of programming tools that Objective-C/Cocoa made available.

 

[peharri]

Yellow Box apps under Windows looked 100% native.

To my eyes, they always had a particular look to them that wasn't quite Windowsy. And obviously, the developer always had to compromise when designing the UI to ensure something that didn't look completely out of place.

Again, a nearly a decade old API on one platform is not the same thing as having today's Cocoa available for windows development.

Well, no, right now the situation would be even harder. GUIs haven't become less complex over the last ten years, and Windows and Mac have hardly converged. If anything, there are far more differences between the UIs and the philosophies behind them than ever before.

It was not some Java style cross platform attempt that uses no native controls on any OS.

Java offers AWT and SWT if you want "native controls". The former is generally considered a disaster. But even so, a quick look at, say, Eclipse (SWT) shows that native controls are hardly the most critical aspect of ensuring an application looks and feels native on two different platforms when running the same software. Or, I guess, you could just run an OPENSTEP/NT application under both NT and NEXTSTEP.

And you really don't know what you are talking about if you think interpreted Java would be a better solution than dynamically dispatched Objective-C/Cocoa for performance critical apps.

And you don't know what you're talking about if you think Java is interpreted. Or maybe you knew that and thought I was suggesting that people should disable the JIT components of their Java installations, you know, the ones that have been standard for most of the last decade! In which case, I invite you to show where I said people should do this...

The performance difference between modern Java implementations and C++ is so minimal few people take the issue into consideration when deciding between the two. Take a look at Jake2 if you have any doubts that Java isn't an extremely well performing language.

The app I developed with yellow box was 100x faster than it's C++ predecessor primarily because of the rich set of programming tools that Objective-C/Cocoa made available.

I'm going to call you on that. Unless you're changing the context and meant you developed it 100x faster or something. Or maybe you're just a really bad C++ developer! The "rich set of programming tools" ObjC/Cocoa makes available really doesn't speed up your app, it just speeds up development. For the most part, ObjC's dynamism ends up being an advantage in terms of speed of development, but a disadvantage when it comes to speed of execution. You have to weigh up what you need and make the right decision.

 

[jayb2000]

We have a winner!

This is Apple being Apple. First with iTunes and now with Safari they're testing the waters. If all goes well I would expect to see more of this. That is more of Apple creating Win32 versions of Mac apps. As for opening this development tool to any old developer. That, I don't know and wouldn't expect to see any time soon.

Exactly. Apple is all about selling hardware. They use (typically) great software to do it, but building cool apps for the iPhone because a windows developer is just messing around, would help

 

[psingh01]

Exactly. Apple is all about selling hardware. They use (typically) great software to do it, but building cool apps for the iPhone because a windows developer is just messing around, would help

well...in that conference with Bill Gates, Steve Jobs said that Apple is a SOFTWARE company....so they maybe going in a different direction now.

 

[CoreWeb]

well...in that conference with Bill Gates, Steve Jobs said that Apple is a SOFTWARE company....so they maybe going in a different direction now.

But, as Steve Jobs quoted from some other guy, If you are really into software, you have to make your own hardware. (I'm paraphrasing, obviously)

 

[Rocketman]

There was no Red Box (Windows on Rhapsody). That was never more than a rumor.

NeXTStep for NT is not the current Cocoa and is not available for license. I have discs I could use to develop and run Yellow Box for Windows apps using years old technology that is missing years worth of advancements in the technology (bindings, core data, core graphics, core animation, etc., etc). And what I don't have, and what nobody has, is a license to install Yellow Box runtime onto customers machines.

Linky

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3761962&mode=threaded#post3761962

Message #23


Rocketman

 

[dcr]

I am a developer. I have 3 different clients who would jump all over Cocoa for Windows if it were available.

I'm a developer too.

Is Safari a sub-standard Windows app?

Compared to the other apps I use on Windows, it's out of place and doesn't "feel" right. Get out of the mac bubble and you'll see it's getting reamed on Windows sites.

 

[alandail]

I'm a developer too.



Compared to the other apps I use on Windows, it's out of place and doesn't "feel" right. Get out of the mac bubble and you'll see it's getting reamed on Windows sites.

1 million downloads in 2 days. How long do you think it'll take for Safari's market share to double? I think it'll take less than a year. Perhaps much less.

 

[alandail]

Linky

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3761962&mode=threaded#post3761962

Message #23


Rocketman

That was never called red box, it was always called yellow box for windows. "Red Box" was a rumored way to run windows apps inside of rhapsody (rhapsody for Intel). It was never confirmed to be more than a rumor.